ABSTRACT: THIS STATUTE WAS RECENTLY ADDED TO AND RE-TITLED THE CHILD ABDUCTION PROTECTION ACT. THIS STATUTE GRANTS THE COURT OPTIONS WHEN THERE IS A RISK THAT ONE PARTY WILL REMOVE A CHILD FROM THE STATE OR COUNTRY OR CONCEAL A CHILD’S WHEREABOUTS. THESE OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE WHEN THE COURT ENTERS A PARENTING PLAN, WHETHER AN INITIAL PROCEEDING OR MODIFICATION PROCEEDING. THE COURT HAS TO LOOK AT FACTORS THAT CREATE A RISK OF VIOLATION AND CAN LIMIT A PARTY’S TIME WITH A CHILD BASED ON ANY RISK. FACTORS THE COURT LOOKS AT INCLUDE PAST ACTIONS BY A PARTY OR RECENT ACTIONS AND CONDITIONS THAT SHOW THE LIKELIHOOD THAT A PARENT WILL LEAVE THE DESIGNATED AREA. THE COURT CAN CONSIDER WHERE THE PARTY MAY GO WHEN DETERMINING WHICH DETERRENTS TO ORDER. THE DETERRENTS CAN RANGE FROM ORDERS PROHIBITING CERTAIN ACTION TO REQUIRED POSTING OF BOND OR OTHER SECURITY.
ABSTRACT: Under 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, the Court can award a spouse with majority timesharing exclusive use and possession of a marital residence until the minor child reaches the age of majority or until the spouse remarries. The Court justifies this award as an way of avoiding further disruption to a minor child’s life. Florida case law suggests this award is the norm unless “special circumstances” exist to make it inequitable.. Special Circumstances include: relative financial positions of parties, duration of residence, other assets available, and earning capacity of the parties. To sustain the award, the parties must be able to maintain the home living separately and the non-occupying spouse must be financially able to forego the economic benefit of distributing the asset immediately. Some case law suggests a nonmarital home can be subject to exclusive use and possession.